Talk:Strictly Come Dancing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks you can do: Merge: Suggested merge of Criticism of the BBC into BBC controversies (Discuss) Cleanup: Newsnight, BBC Prime, BBC Two Northern Ireland Expand: All 10 start-class BBC articles with Top importance - see here, BBC Lifestyle Stubs: Stub-Class BBC articles Update: BBC Portal NPOV: Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Other: Ensure all our articles have the talk page template added to their talk pages. Add free use images for biographical articles. Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes. Get our new task force on BBC Sitcoms going. Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC.

Contents 1 External links 2 Salsa Cut 3 It Takes Two 4 Alan Dedicoat 5 scoring history 6 Publishing results before results show is broadcast 7 Arlene Phillips leaving Strictly Come Dancing? 8 Ratings 8.1 Update 9 INCORRECT HIGHEST SCORES 10 Strictly Come Dancing Tour 11 Perfect tens 12 Best Combined Scores and Worst Individual and combined Scores by Week 13 Number of episodes

[edit] External links

The EBunton external link is simply to a fan site for Emma Bunton. The contributor is unregistered with no other contributions. I was under the impression that such vanity links should not be included? I removed it once but it has been put back in. Tim 11:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this site again, if anywhere it should be on the Emma Bunton page and not here! Jamesbuc

[edit] Salsa Cut

Im just wondering but on the subject of Clair and Brendan's salsa is it the first dance that has been forced to modify by the BBC? And if so is it worthy of commenting on in the article?

NoThe Boy that time forgot 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No to what? To them having the first cut dance or if its worthy of comment? Jamesbuc

[edit] It Takes Two

I don't think this should be inserted into the main Dancing page. There's already a section with it Takes Two and a link on the main page why put the whole article on to this page?

Pafcool 11:47, 21 December 2006

[edit] Alan Dedicoat

There's no mention of Alan Dedicoat here - there is on the US page!

86.153.63.245 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scoring history

Am I the only person who thinks that the detailed scoring history is not notable and non-encyclopedic and should be on a fan site and not here? 90.11.55.73 06:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing results before results show is broadcast

I've removed the results of Week 5 as the results show is yet to be broadcast. Presumably the editor was at the show when it was recorded last night. It doesn't seem fair to any keen viewers to have the results on the page before they're widely known. --Whoosher 12:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the results should NEVER be published before they are publicly available. The result is unverifiable (except for those who attended the results show) and will spoil the results show for other viewers. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The same thing is happening in Week 7. I assume that the people still in the contest are in alphabetical order of the celebrities' first name. Oyster24 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I (and everyone else awaiting the results show tomorrow) am aware, everyone under "Week 6" are still in the contest. Anonymous users keep adding erroreous results, and I'm presently thinking of getting the page semi-protected. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

All this is a result of the decision by the BBC to show the results show a day after they come out! If they had kept to the original format, none of this would have happened.Oyster24 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is impossible to keep the result confidential if the show is pre-recorded (unless they went to the effort to record multiple results, something they are unlikely to do just for SCD). I think I'm just going to give up editing these pages after the results show is recorded. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, however am still of the firm opinion that the results shouldn't be posted here until after the results show has been broadcast. It says in the guidelines under every editbox that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." That means that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." As the results show hasn't been broadcast, it surely doesn't meet the verifiability criterion, therefore the information shouldn't be included on the page. That's apart from the fact that adding the results does spoil the enjoyment of the show for anybody who runs across the names of those who've been voted off.

All it needs is for those people who've attended the recording to play fair and just wait a few hours. After all, there are around 8 million people watching the programme on TV and only maybe a couple of hundred actually there - the majority should rule! Whoosher (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree (with verifiability), and have cited that as a reason for removing the content from pages. We may just have to contend with the fact that a minority of people will always spoil it for the majority. I was wondering if we could "pre-emptively" semi-protect the page before the results are released, until after the Sunday show, but I don't think that it would be allowed. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arlene Phillips leaving Strictly Come Dancing?

See the Arlene Phillips talk page for this discussion

[edit] Ratings

How do we know any of the ratings are correct? Recently, a user changed the value for series 5 final from 11.x to 12.x with no explanation!

The people who fill in this section need to source it.

If this is not done soon, then I will remove the entire section, as with no source, it does not belong on Wikipedia!

Regards, Dewarw (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an article in the Guardian (online) which gives the ratings for SCD. Have a look here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/24/tvratings.television. I don't know how to put in a link to show the reference.Oyster24 (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit harsh to remove the whole section which has interesting facts contained in it. At least I did put in one reference.Oyster24 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, please view Wiki policy about "interesting facts." Just because it is interesting, it should not necessarily be on Wiki!! I am also not convinced by that source! Anyhow, all the others are unsourced! Dewarw

I have put un-cited notices on the table. If sources are not found soon, I will remove all but the sourced figure. I am not being mean, I am simply pointing out that al those values could be made up! The editors who put them up should have sourced them! Dewarw (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I have now removed all offending material (leaving the one sourced claim). Do not re-add unless you can source it. I have given plenty of warning for this!

Regards, Dewarw (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could the anon users please stop re-adding the material. You will be blocked from editing if you continue! Dewarw (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

the sources are perfectly OK - the link is to the site of the official barb ratings. The site is constructed in a way that means that individual http links for each figure cannot be given - but it is easy to check every week cited from the page given. That is entirely sufficient. Why are you being so unreasonable? If anyone can find page identifiers then they are welcome to add them 62.64.214.9 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, if you know what you are doing, it isn't that difficult. However, the "Series Average" figures are still uncited (and unless you can find a reference for them, will be removed) along with the other statements in that section. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] INCORRECT HIGHEST SCORES

The highest scores are incorrect. It says that it doesnt include the christmas special, but Matt got 39 for his rumba in the christmas special and only 33 in the main show. Therefore Natasha and Colin have the highest rumba scores of 36 i believe.

Also Darren Gough got 40 in the christmas special for his quickstep, the highest in the main show was Colin Jackson with 39.

This needs to be ammended as it is completely incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.99.97 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at recent changes, the comment that the scores do not include the Christmas Special was added only a few weeks ago, without all the scores being updated to reflect this change. For the moment I have returned it to its original form, which seems to me to be more sensible since although the Christmas Special scores are typically more generous than those of the main series, the maximum scores we are debating here are only awarded occasionally and to people who have achieved a very high standard of dance. A score of 36 in the Christmas Special may not be particularly remarkable, but a score of 40 is still unusual (and in fact has only been achieved four times in four Christmas Specials, even though all together there have been seven appearance by ex or current Strictly champions on the specials).

I could see an argument for making it clearer which scores were achieved in Specials, and even for adding in the highest score from a main series to the dances affected, but it seems to me a bit unfair to exclude these scores as if they aren't valid. Gingernut1015 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for ammending this, the table is now correct. I agree that the christmas special scores are sometimes generous, therefore a second table that includes the highest scores excluding the christmas special ones would be great. However it would need to include the correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.99.97 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say my preference would be to leave it as it is now... in my opinion it is perfectly valid to say that the Christmas Special scores are the highest. You might as well argue that we give series two scores preference over series five, because the marking was harder. It's a subjective point, in the end they are all numbers, and surely at least part of the reason why the Christmas scores are relatively high is that in general only the best from each series participate.

I would suggest if anyone wants to make the distinction it is done within the original list, rather than making a new section of an article which is already very long, and contains all the scores for anyone who wants to look them up anyway.

For example: Quickstep: Best Darren Gough/Colin Jackson (40 in Xmas Specials), Best in main series Colin Jackson (39), Worst Diarmuid Gavin (12) Gingernut1015 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, here are the updates of the correct scores including the highest the xmas specials and the main show. Feel free to update it, these are 100% correct.

Rumba: Best Matt Di Angelo (39 in Xmas Special), Best in main series Natasha Kaplinsky/Colin Jackson (36), Worst Fiona Phillips (13)

Waltz: Best Matt Di Angelo (40 in main series), Best Gethin Jones (40 in Xmas Special), Worst Fiona Phillips (11)

Quickstep: Best Darren Gough/Colin Jackson (40 in Xmas Special), Best in main series Colin Jackson (39), Worst Diarmuid Gavin (12)

American Smooth (performed since series three): Best Darren Gough (40 in Xmas Special), Best in main series Gethin Jones (38), Worst John Barnes (22) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.99.97 (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strictly Come Dancing Tour

Is it worth starting a section detailing who won each show? I note that there is one on the dancing on ice page, but it doesn't appear to have many verifiable sources. There is a source for last night's winner (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/dance/article3213072.ece), but it's unlikely there would be one for every show so some of this information would either be missing or (more likely) sourced from forums etc. 172.189.139.185 (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if it is only likely that the first show will have a reliable source (aka The Times), then I don't think a record should be kept of who won each show. Forums are not reliable and so wouldn't count as a valid source. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering about this source: http://www.darrenandlilia.com/scd/scdlive.htm. There is a disclaimer on it that it isn't officially collated, as such I guess it can't be classed as a reliable source. On the other hand the compilers are professional dancers on the tour- so a pretty good source of information- and from what I know of the results from other sources it has been compiled accurately. Gingernut1015 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect tens

Is it necessary to list all the tens? When the section was started it was more of an event to get a ten than it is now. I wonder if it might be better just to list say the three couples who have received the most tens as a point of interest. Presumably all the scores are available in the rest of the article anyway so it's a bit repetitive as well.Gingernut1015 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also (and this is what prompted me to wonder about this in the first place), assuming the perfect ten section is here to stay would it possibly be worth adding in the perfect forty dances? As I find people are continually adding the tens from one of these dances into the perfect ten section, which then irritates me as none of the others is there.Gingernut1015 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best Combined Scores and Worst Individual and combined Scores by Week

I think this should have it because it is important information. You won't always want to find it out by yourself and there is a statistic section so it would be perfectly okay for it wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.189.128 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of episodes

The infobox states that there have been 55 episodies since December 2007. This does not include the result shows, should it? --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tricky because since series five the results show has become more of a separate programme in its own right, whereas in the first few series it was barely a show, just an announcement. I'd be inclined to leave it at 55 but add a (plus ... results shows). I know if I glanced at the number of episodes I'd assume it meant the number of main shows.

I wouldn't fancy counting the number of results shows though- do you know how many there were? I know series one didn't have them for every episode, and I seem to recall only one of the three Christmas Specials had one.Gingernut1015 (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)